Friday Funnies

zomg... the media in the tank for Obama was totally against her?  Shocking!  What were the MSDNC numbers 99% against and 1% for?  Impressive!

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

More than once she openly refused to answer the question, and another time ('achilles heel') clearly misunderstood it and answered the exact opposite of what was asked.  I've never before seen a candidate so brazenly contemptuous of the process.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

Given that the process has been so brazenly contemptuous of the candidate, was it really that shocking?

You can't possibly be serious.  Are you really saying this?   Come on, you know better.

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

Ifell was anything but contemptuous. In fact, she threw so many softballs I'd be amazed if there were any left in the bag at the end of the round. She didn't toss out anything that would have pointed out any differences between the Veep candidates and their running mates. I kept hoping for a gun control question, but it just wasn't meant to be. I realize the whole point of a Veep debate is to push the party platform, but this was entirely too much of a dog and pony show for me.

"Given that the process has been so brazenly contemptuous of the candidate, was it really that shocking?"

I agree that there has been brazen contempt for the candidate, in some cases richly deserved.  But what "process" are you referring to?

This talking point by the Obama campaign and the attack MSM shows how much they have come to rely on false hoods to paint Palin as not ready for the job. When really all it shows is how far they are ready to go to deceive the American public to get Obama in office. Of course Palin understood the questions and knew the answers. Debating is about controlling the field and driving your message not letting the other side force you to talk about what they want to talk about. Palin spoke to the American people, Biden spoke to the elitists and media he knows the policy of the Senate which has caused the problems like the 700 billion dollar bail out. Palin knows what’s happening in the houses of families and as a governor has proven how to fix those problems. After the congress has screwed up the US banking system do we want someone like Biden there having more of a chance to do that.

Yep, keep drinkin' your Kool-Aid, Run.

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

Of course Palin understood the questions and knew the answers.

She just chose not to answer the questions?

Debating is about controlling the field and driving your message

No, that's advertising. Debating is about making a coherent argument and coming up with a logical argument to support your position and convince others, not about spouting platitudes and soundbites.

(Stupid Chrome, not letting me properly format... *grumble*)

Know what enemy Reagan was trying to fight against in that speech? Medicare.

You know -- the program Dubya expanded?

That damned Internet again. Keeps messing up the Republican message control with, you know, actual facts.

You do realize that Palin, Bush, and Reagan are different people, right?

And you do realize that few (if any) conservatives/Republicans have really held Bush up as a shining example of conservative/Republican ideology, right?

Thanks for giving us another example that neoconservatism≠conservatism.

What is really contemptuous is the entire idea of a debate.

Heh - unfortunately, the current "debates" are pretty far from a debate.

Why can't we just see packaged 5 second soundbites that are given to us by the McCain campaign instead of showing utter contempt and disregard for Palin by asking her questions?

Yeah, that's pretty much what the "debates" have been for all parties for the past few years.

I love watching conservatives airbrush history. That Stalin George W. Bush, he was never really a *true* Marxist conservative.

He advocated for the expansion of Medicare during his 2000 campaign - "We will set it on firm financial ground and make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them."

The expansion of government programs, especially social programs like this, isn't really a fundamental conservative view.

Now that he's followed through on the plan, what do you make of the situation?
He advocated a non-conservative viewpoint and followed through on it - how exactly does that keep "messing up the Republican message control with, you know, actual facts?"

I love watching conservatives airbrush history. That Stalin George W. Bush, he was never really a *true* Marxist conservative.

No airbrushing required when it's the truth and readily supported by 2000 campaign material.

"...and yet another tragically unfunny friday funnies...."

Yes, people take this stuff much too seriously.  Especially when one realizes that regardless of who wins the Presidential election, they both want the government to completely run our lives.  So why not just sit back and laugh at the absurdity of it all?

No Palin got The McCain/Palin Message out to the public that Obama is going to cut and run from Iraq that he said are Pilots bombed innocent civilians. She didn't lie or make false statements like Biden did she just answered the questions of the moderator and corrected Biden and responded when appropriate.

I don't know what you call the mob you all run in but just because you can twist some words well and call people names so we won't talk to you doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. If you actually went out and did something more then punch those keys on that key board maybe I would think what you had to had some meaning if you actually did something, until then you are just nasty attacks on a screen.

Incidentally, very good article in today's New York Times about why the collapse of the housing bubble led to such a dramatic financial crisis in the banking system.

Turns out that the big five investment banks were given a special regulatory dispensation -- yes, that's right, they were given deregulation that wasn't industry wide but was still deregulation -- letting them leverage their cash on hand at a far, far steeper rate than other banks were allowed, the idea being that because they were big smart banks they wouldn't do anything suicidal. They'd be prudent and fiscally careful and watch themselves carefully and could be counted on to keep themselves out of trouble because they were the big mature grownups of the banking industry.

And the banks instead went on a bender.

The commission’s decision effectively to outsource its oversight to the firms themselves fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.

A similar closeness to industry and laissez-faire philosophy has driven a push for deregulation throughout the government, from the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency to worker safety and transportation agencies.

“It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”

...

The 2004 decision also reflected a faith that Wall Street’s financial interests coincided with Washington’s regulatory interests.

“We foolishly believed that the firms had a strong culture of self-preservation and responsibility and would have the discipline not to be excessively borrowing,” said Professor James D. Cox, an expert on securities law and accounting at Duke School of Law (and no relationship to Christopher Cox).

“Letting the firms police themselves made sense to me because I didn’t think the S.E.C. had the staff and wherewithal to impose its own standards and I foolishly thought the market would impose its own self-discipline. We’ve all learned a terrible lesson,” he added.

What? You mean unfettered capitalism isn't infinitely wise in its infinite wisdom? Could it be possible?

If you actually went out and did something more then punch those keys on that key board maybe I would think what you had to had some meaning if you actually did something, until then you are just nasty attacks on a screen.

But he doesn't make personal attacks...

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

Anybody interested in discussing if (or perhaps when, but more likely if) the McCain-Palin campaign will expose Sarah Palin to any media encounters that aren't tightly scripted?

Palin On Fox News: Couric Annoyed Me

Instead, she attended Hawaii Pacific College, North Idaho Community College, University of Idaho, Matanuska-Susitna Community College, and University of Idaho again.

Five colleges in six years. Not bad for an undergraduate degree. Maybe she was voted editor of the Matanuska-Susitna Community College Law Review.

“It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”

Right, but don't you dare call that deregulation.  An easing of the rules, voluntary compliance, the stagnating of staff levels at regulatory agencies - none of these things are technically deregulation in the conservative universe.  And therefore deregulation is not responsible for the latest economic catastrophe to be ushered in on a Republican's watch.  In fact, deregulation has never been tried at all!

George W. Bush is not a conservative.  Conservative economics have never been tried.  Obama was a part of the Weather Underground at age five, and Sarah Palin is overqualified for the presidency.

Welcome to the conservative war on reality.

McCain strategy:
channeling Leslie Nielsen.
Time for funny dance!

Hilarious, and so true:

Is it time to call someone sexist yet?

A perfect sumamry of the bailout:

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

Why does Biden get constant passes on so many gaffes (like which article in the Constitution discusses the executive branch)?

I think this was ignored because Biden was talking about the role of the VP, which is articulated in Article 1, Section 3 (I think) as the President of the Senate.  I am not aware of any details about the VP that are articulated in Article 2, besides the line of succession.

"Katie's Diner closed 25 years ago and was never on Union but what's a little white lie. ...Yeah, and I don't recollect a Home Depot on Union Street either. duh. Must be all that botox swimming in his skull."

Classy.  Of course here is what Biden actually said:

Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years. ...

I'm not sure about the Katie's Diner thing, but he didn't say the Home Depot was on Union, at least.

Oh, hold it.  Does the truth really matter?

I'd be at a loss at how the VA healthcare system could be reasonably expanded to all citizens as well.  As it stands now it can take upwards of a couple months to get an appointment sometimes (longer if you have to do some fee-basis deal with a private healthcare provider for services the VA doesn't provide for - which covers a lot of specialties) and that's with them limiting enrollment for higher income vets without service connected disabilities (and that's also if you're in the priority 1 grouping as opposed to any of the other priority groups - down to priority 8 - McCain is, iirc, a priority 1 group which means not even all vets get his level of service). 

The VA system is currently serving less than 3% of the population at a $90 billion dollar price tag per year... assuming that you could expand it enough to cover everybody and actually include all the services they don't include by the rough calculation of taking that price tag to the 100% level you're getting into the 3 trillion dollar range for a government program that operates much like insurance companies on claims except they can't be sued unless they let you when they don't uphold their end of the deal.

Much like Obama's plan to expand SSA related programs to provide quasi-universal healthcare merely expands our current inefficient system while ignoring all of the ways that other universal systems operate more efficiently.  Expanding current inefficient systems, whether they be VA, SSA related, etc just makes the current problem bigger without fixing any of the problems at enormous cost that is beyond our means to pay for. 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed